Quote:Being vegetarian is a conscious choice. Being omnivorous is a natural instinct. From that you can decide which is more in tune with your nutritional requirements.

You're saying this from the point of view of someone who was raised as an omnivore I'm assuming. If one was raised as a vegetarian, they're not going to crave meat out of nowhere. But once you get a taste for it, just like anything else, you might get a craving for it. I used to smoke. Sometimes I get a craving for a cigarette, but that doesn't mean it's my natural instinct.

No, as animals, our instinct is to see other animals as a source of nutrients. We have in our subconscious both the instinct to hunt and to scavenge.It has over the past few years come to light that chimpanzees also hunt in packs, and eat animal flesh as a regular part of their diet.Our bodies are set up to process and use flesh as a source of energy and nutrients, and our minds are imbued with a natural instinct to make use of that physiological ability.

That is what I mean by instinct. Being vegetarian is not our natural state.

Not that I'm an expert on the subject, but I do think that argument is slightly flawed. Sure there are parts of our physical makeup that would work with an omnivorous diet. But there are also parts that would prove the opposite. Personally, and I'm no doctor, but it doesn't seem healthy that meat sits in your intestines for so long and is allowed to putrify. Also, other omnivorous animals have like 20 times the amount of digestive acid as humans do, which breaks down animal proteins. So whereas we CAN process animals and absorb the nutrients from them, it may not be the most ideal way for us to get nutrients. Perhaps a back up, in case we were to have to survive in a place where plantlife was scarce.

Our instinct is that of hunter-gatherer. To eat both animal and plant material. It is far easier for our bodies to achieve the necessary nutrient intake by this method than by being purely vegetarian. The vast majority of proteins available to us from single, non animal, sources are incomplete, lacking the full range of essential amino acids found in meat. This means that beans and pulses must be varied and combined meal to meal. This is only feasable in a developed agricultural environment. Our base physiology finds meat a more efficient and immediately balanced protein source.

Remember, i am not saying it is not possible to eat a vegetarian diet, it is merely a simple fact that we, as primates, are omnivorous, and have been through hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.

Eating meat may be a more efficient way of obtaining nutrients in the sense that you don't have to combine foods (you don't necessarily have to combine them at the same time. You can eat rice for lunch and beans for dinner and still obtain a complete protein, as an example.) However, if it was truly the best way, our bodies would produce the necessary amount of stomach acid to completely break down the animal protein and fully digest it. Rather than allowing undigested remains fester in our intestines which allow for illness. Also, meat eaters have a much higher incidence of heart disease and colon cancer than vegetarians. Could be coincidence but I don't know...

Quote:Eating meat may be a more efficient way of obtaining nutrients in the sense that you don't have to combine foods (you don't necessarily have to combine them at the same time. You can eat rice for lunch and beans for dinner and still obtain a complete protein, as an example.)

And how does that equate with our pre-agricultural physiological needs? would our basic foraging range and environment encompass a varied enough supply of roots and pulses to sustain us, or would we just kill a rabbit and save our energy?

Quote:However, if it was truly the best way, our bodies would produce the necessary amount of stomach acid to completely break down the animal protein and fully digest it.

We simply do not process any food source- animal or vegetable with 100% efficiency. No creature on earth does. Yet still we must eat to survive.Koala's must ingest bacteria from their mothers feaceas in order to digest eucaplyptus leaves, the Panda has to eat bamboo contininualy to get the nutrients it needs to survive (and will most happily eat meat when given the chance).My point is that the ingesting of matter from which to derive energy is an inefficient process regardless of the matter in question.

Quote:Also, meat eaters have a much higher incidence of heart disease and colon cancer than vegetarians. Could be coincidence but I don't know...

I refer you to my answer above:'people who make such a big lifestyle change as to become veggies often do so out of a perception that it is the 'healthy' option. Such people are also less likely to smoke, drink heavily, and more likely to take some form of exercise. As stereotypical as it may sound, having been in the fitness industry for some time, it is an observation that the 'vegeterian mindset' gravitates towards things such as pilates and yoga- known for their 'stress busting' qualities.

The chances are that a meat eater, who does not smoke, drink heavily, takes regular exercise incorporating stress management techniques, will have just as robust a physiology as a vegetarian.

Conversely, a hard drinking chain smoking veggie who's idea of exercise is the new Wii controller is very likely to be on his way to an early grave.